Stud RB in the World of RBBC (1 Viewer)

[Gatorman]

In continuing with my series of looking at every position, It is time to look at the RBs

Are the Studs still there, or is RBBC taking over, leaving the mid rounds as more of a talent crapshoot?

Studs at the moment (players all alone in their backfield for at least 70% of the time (3 downs, not punts))

LT

LJ

Gore

S Jackson

Portis

Maroney*

Westbrook

Willie Parker*

McGahee

Edge

Benson*

Travis Henry*

Cadillac*

Ronnie Brown*

Ahman Green

Addai

Shaun Alexander*

That is 17/32 teams, so less than 2 rounds of guys. The guys with * either have some injury history or coaches with RBBC tendencies but without that second back at the moment. Depending if you are a cup 1/2 full or 1/2 empty guy, then it is hard to know where to put them. I alos have omitted Bush/McCallister in this case, even though bush could be considered in this top group even with a RBBC.

So where does that put us? It seems that the days of stud RB may be over, at least for the second round. Enough question marks will be available for 15 teams x 2 players splitting time to give us another 30 backs to go along with these 17. So that is 47 guys who will definitely see the field on sundays, not including the goal line and 3rd down guys that can also get points. This kind of depth (granted, crappy depth, but still playable) means that once you have worked your way to the bottom of the stud group, those WRs, QBs, and even a TE or two may represent a better value than any of the RBBCers.

What does this do to your draft. Are you looking to get 3 of the guys from that list in the first 3 rounds and screw RBBC, or take one of those guys and go deep into the RBBC haystack hoping to find the needle?

For the purposes of this arguement, lets look at it 3 ways

a traditional 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE etc alignment

a WCOFF alignment 1QB, 2 RB 3 WR 1 Flex, 1 TE

Or simply how it changes your flex thinking: Do you put a WR in the flex, one of the RBBC RBs, or 2 RBs from the same team if they tend to get a good chunk of yards between the twoof them, but it always varies who gets the bulk (the old Hearst/Barlow days)

Enjoy!

 

[ELI2TYREE]

Last year I had Barber as my stud first RD pick, and then picked up Dillon and Maroney in later rounds. We use the flex, so for most of the year, I used Maroney/Dillon as my RB2 and flex. It was the best year I had in a while, and I ended up losing in the SB.

This year I intend to try it again, but picking late in the first round makes it more difficult. If I had the choice, I would land Bush and McAllister and then find a third RB that is reliable, though I am intrigued this year by Jacobs/Droughns in NY, as it looks like the Giants are going to commit to the run significantly this year, to try to ease the pressure on Eli.

The WR as the flex is more hit or miss from week to week, unless you have made a concerted effort early in the draft to land really good receivers. My league is defintely harder to gauge to the rest of yours, because we also use 2Qbs, so take my two cents for what they are worth.

However, I am definitely changing my prior FF strategy from younger "potentially great" WR's as flex players, to using the RBBC to fill the role and round out the RB2 position at the same time. Of course, we are a points per reception league, so that helps when you have a back in the RBBC that can catch, while the other one gains the ground yards and gets the goal line carries.

 

[Family Matters]

Nothing has changed as far as how to draft for me. It's no different than ay year I've played FF. There are the studs, like you say and then the strategy of how to draft. The answer lies in going with the flow of the draft. It's not always about the best value at the time. If you think drafting a WR is the better scoring option at the moment but you risk getting locked out of a qaulity RB2 then that might be a mistake.

So really nothing is different this year. Tyhe NFL hasn't converted to a RBBC. But the appearance of such does create some RB values in the 3rd thru 5th rounds. Guys will leave some nice RB options for you if your patient.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I think it depends on where you are drafting.

If you're at the latter end of the draft.......I think it's wise to take 2 Rb's who have starting jobs. To me, it'd be worth waiting till the 3rd round for your WR if you can get 2 solid Rbs.

However, if you are at the beginning of the draft, say top 6 or so......then take a Stud RB and then plan on going WR in the 2nd round.

Depending on what's taken behind you and on the way back up thru the early 3rd, you can either go RB2 or take yet another VERY solid WR which is a nice start to a league where it's mandatory to start 3 Wr's.

An effective strategy if you do decide to just go 1 Stud RB early and then get two quality Wr's would be to target what you think is a good running team and think about spending two mid round picks on getting those Rb's. Maybe it's a 4th and a 6th......but you basically gaurantee having a VERY solid RB2 with one of them.

So, after starting off with say a Frank Gore, Chadd Johnson, and Alquan Boldin. You use the next 2 out of 3 picks on picking up your solid RB2 and you've gotten yourself a solid core to a team.

 

[einstein2u]

I think this year it is essential to go RB RB. try and secure at least 2 "stud" RB. i might even consider going RB-RB-RB and not worry about picking the right needle in the haystack.

 

[The Mechanic]

I think it depends on where you are drafting.If you're at the latter end of the draft.......I think it's wise to take 2 Rb's who have starting jobs. To me, it'd be worth waiting till the 3rd round for your WR if you can get 2 solid Rbs.However, if you are at the beginning of the draft, say top 6 or so......then take a Stud RB and then plan on going WR in the 2nd round.Depending on what's taken behind you and on the way back up thru the early 3rd, you can either go RB2 or take yet another VERY solid WR which is a nice start to a league where it's mandatory to start 3 Wr's.An effective strategy if you do decide to just go 1 Stud RB early and then get two quality Wr's would be to target what you think is a good running team and think about spending two mid round picks on getting those Rb's. Maybe it's a 4th and a 6th......but you basically gaurantee having a VERY solid RB2 with one of them.So, after starting off with say a Frank Gore, Chadd Johnson, and Alquan Boldin. You use the next 2 out of 3 picks on picking up your solid RB2 and you've gotten yourself a solid core to a team.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking. Picking 4th lets say is a heck of a lot diffrent than picking 11th in a 12 team league (re-draft). A lot depends on your scoring system but basically an early pick YOU NEED A STUB RB to solidfy that position. If late 1st round then its a crapshoot at the RB position so you better take 2 quickly and then watch the draft flow....But WE all know this, right?

 

[David Yudkin]

For those panicking about RBBC and migrating to WR picks instead, the stats show very little decrease in RB production in the various scoring tiers. The only real change is that there are a couple more players that score in the RB2 range. However, top WR scoring has actually GONE DOWN and identifying the top scoring WRs has become more difficult. (SMoss? Galloway? Muhammad? Walker? SSmith? Who really expected those guys to do so well?)

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I think it depends on where you are drafting.

If you're at the latter end of the draft.......I think it's wise to take 2 Rb's who have starting jobs. To me, it'd be worth waiting till the 3rd round for your WR if you can get 2 solid Rbs.

However, if you are at the beginning of the draft, say top 6 or so......then take a Stud RB and then plan on going WR in the 2nd round.

Depending on what's taken behind you and on the way back up thru the early 3rd, you can either go RB2 or take yet another VERY solid WR which is a nice start to a league where it's mandatory to start 3 Wr's.

An effective strategy if you do decide to just go 1 Stud RB early and then get two quality Wr's would be to target what you think is a good running team and think about spending two mid round picks on getting those Rb's. Maybe it's a 4th and a 6th......but you basically gaurantee having a VERY solid RB2 with one of them.

So, after starting off with say a Frank Gore, Chadd Johnson, and Alquan Boldin. You use the next 2 out of 3 picks on picking up your solid RB2 and you've gotten yourself a solid core to a team.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking. Picking 4th lets say is a heck of a lot diffrent than picking 11th in a 12 team league (re-draft). A lot depends on your scoring system but basically an early pick YOU NEED A STUB RB to solidfy that position. If late 1st round then its a crapshoot at the RB position so you better take 2 quickly and then watch the draft flow....But WE all know this, right?

Elaborate please. I think I agree with what you are saying here.

 

[Family Matters]

For those panicking about RBBC and migrating to WR picks instead, the stats show very little decrease in RB production in the various scoring tiers. The only real change is that there are a couple more players that score in the RB2 range. However, top WR scoring has actually GONE DOWN and identifying the top scoring WRs has become more difficult. (SMoss? Galloway? Muhammad? Walker? SSmith? Who really expected those guys to do so well?)

But David, now you've gone and unraveled the RBBC conspiracy yet again. Why do you do that to these poor souls? You must like driving them crazy.

 

[David Yudkin]

For those panicking about RBBC and migrating to WR picks instead, the stats show very little decrease in RB production in the various scoring tiers. The only real change is that there are a couple more players that score in the RB2 range. However, top WR scoring has actually GONE DOWN and identifying the top scoring WRs has become more difficult. (SMoss? Galloway? Muhammad? Walker? SSmith? Who really expected those guys to do so well?)

But David, now you've gone and unraveled the RBBC conspiracy yet again. Why do you do that to these poor souls? You must like driving them crazy.

What's interesting is that I do believe that there is a migration to teams admitting to using a RBBC. However, that has yet to show up in the year end numbers. In the past few years, I believe that some teams year-end scoring REFLECTED using some sort of RBBC but since it evolved over the year the masses didn't appear to notice as much. IMO, the media is playing this up because the better teams last year implemented RBBCs. RBBCs in the past were normally weaker teams and RBBCs now seem to be the stronger teams. Go figure.I still think if teams had a sure fire guy they could use 300+ carries a year efectively they would. It doesn't hurt having another RB option, but IMo the teams-need-two-RBs-too-be-competitive is way overblown.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

I think this year it is essential to go RB RB. try and secure at least 2 "stud" RB. i might even consider going RB-RB-RB and not worry about picking the right needle in the haystack.

In a mock right now at pick 11. I got Alexander and Portis. 3 picks before my third Caddy and A. Green are still on the board, but will have to pass if Gates / Wayne remain on the board.I will be interested to see what WR/RB will be left. Right now I am liking how the #11 pick looks.

 

[Family Matters]

For those panicking about RBBC and migrating to WR picks instead, the stats show very little decrease in RB production in the various scoring tiers. The only real change is that there are a couple more players that score in the RB2 range. However, top WR scoring has actually GONE DOWN and identifying the top scoring WRs has become more difficult. (SMoss? Galloway? Muhammad? Walker? SSmith? Who really expected those guys to do so well?)

But David, now you've gone and unraveled the RBBC conspiracy yet again. Why do you do that to these poor souls? You must like driving them crazy.

What's interesting is that I do believe that there is a migration to teams admitting to using a RBBC. However, that has yet to show up in the year end numbers. In the past few years, I believe that some teams year-end scoring REFLECTED using some sort of RBBC but since it evolved over the year the masses didn't appear to notice as much. IMO, the media is playing this up because the better teams last year implemented RBBCs. RBBCs in the past were normally weaker teams and RBBCs now seem to be the stronger teams. Go figure.I still think if teams had a sure fire guy they could use 300+ carries a year efectively they would. It doesn't hurt having another RB option, but IMo the teams-need-two-RBs-too-be-competitive is way overblown.

You make an interesting point on this. I really think it's money driven. The CAP really prohibits teams from affording 2 RB1 types. Teams in transition have found themselves there as a matter of short term luxury but you can't put that much of your CAP into 1 position that doesn't handle the ball every down. such as the QB. Last year we saw some teams in the playoffs that got alot of attention. Indy, Chicago and NO come to mind but Indy and Chicago are no longer doing that. They realize that's too much money at that position. If teams could afford this I think you'd see more of it in cases where teams do not have a true RB1 stud.Teams like Buff don't want to pay much so they draft a guy like Henry & MaGahee to replace their current RB stud within a couple of years in order to not pay out the big contract. It's less CAP hit but it also leaves teams a biot instable at a key position. And of course it kills FF dyansty teams.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Was Rudi left out?

 

[David Yudkin]

Was Rudi left out?

And what about Jamal Lewis.

 

[Gatorman]

Was Rudi left out?

And what about Jamal Lewis.

opps. Still, the theory still holds.

 

[sizzer55]

i think many teams are starting to believe that it is often not the rb as much as it is the team around the rb so many are now avoiding spending $8million a year or so on a rb. edge is a perfect example of this. i feel that his success in indy was largely because teams had to give so much respect and focus to the colts' passing game (namely peyton manning). i think he would have had another really good year if he had stayed in indy last year. instead he went to arizona with no one near a peyton manning, a bad o-line, a bad defense, and a tradition of losing, and he couldn't overcome all of that.

i've also seen a lot of people arguing that there are not fewer stud rb's not than in the past but i have to disagree. they often cite year-end stats to show a similar number of 300 carry rb's but i don't know if this is the best measure. i think in the past, it seemed like most teams would start the season with a feature back and then in a lot of cases those feature backs would get banged up or injured and then the backup would assume the role of the feature back until the original starter returned or for the remainder of the season. it just seemed like before that most teams had a feature back that got most of the carries. it seems like now there are so many teams that going into the season we already know that it is a committee for many teams so there seems to be little chance of anyone on these teams having a monster season.

and i think there is something to what someone else said about it used to be the bad teams with the committees and now it's the good teams. so that would mean that the bad teams with a feature back aren't going to have a monster season and the good teams with committees will have 2 guys with decent but not outstanding stats.

 

[Tiger Fan]

I think this year it is essential to go RB RB. try and secure at least 2 "stud" RB. i might even consider going RB-RB-RB and not worry about picking the right needle in the haystack.

In a mock right now at pick 11. I got Alexander and Portis. 3 picks before my third Caddy and A. Green are still on the board, but will have to pass if Gates / Wayne remain on the board.I will be interested to see what WR/RB will be left. Right now I am liking how the #11 pick looks.

not a bad spot to be in